Where does your Hive content come from?
As a consumer, I think the best content tends to come from people who are a bit longer in the tooth, because they tend to also be the people who have some real-world experience. Those who have held multiple jobs, started careers, changed careers, been in and out of long-term relationships, loved, lost, lived. The "worst" content tends to come from those whose experience stems from consuming the experiences of others, the voyeurs, where they think that the internet provides all they need to be an interesting person.
Reality tells a different story.
It is pretty easy to tell through top level content and comments, how little experience some people have, yet they are trying to put something there, in the hope for rewards. However, in general, the people who do this don't get very good results consistently, because they don't bring anything to the table, nothing relatable. This is because everything they offer is theoretical, because they haven't put it into practice, haven't lived it. It isn't theoretical like a theory in physics though, because what they put forward has already been lived by others, making what they say immature in the eyes of someone who has lived it.
And, then there is the content that piggybacks on other content - especially that of people who have already built a following. In general, this isn't supportive however, because that doesn't get attention - it is "against", where people will set up an argument, often misrepresenting the original creator, to get attention from the creator, or from their followers. But, the arguments themselves are again theoretical, because the person piggybacking likely has no direct experience with the topic, they just don't have anything else to write about. This happens on Hive, but happens on all social media, because people are looking for attention.
It is easy to get attention on social media.
But it is very hard to build attention to build attention through having experience and skill, because the work has to be done before there is the opportunity to showcase the outcomes. This is why so much of the content is reactive, to other content, not PROACTIVE based on life experience, because in order to put something based on experience, one has to experience it.
While there is a lot of unknown grey in that map, what it tells is the average age of losing virginity. It seems that I was ahead of the curve in Australia, but I think that this depends on the times too perhaps, where culture has changed. There seems to be a trend where virgins are getting older, which could be down to several factors. For me, I am apparently ahead of the curve in Australia, but par for the course in Scandinavia.
people who live in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland are believed to lose their virginity as young as 16 years of age.
Culture plays a huge part in this and Scandinavians are for more liberal with things concerning sex than say, Indonesia, where the average age is a full eight years later.
What the fuck does this have to do with content creation?
Nothing really.
It has to do with experience. Just think about listening to someone talk about sex based on what they have consumed from the internet, rather than built through their own experience. Or, even talking to someone whose experience with sex is limited to the time they lost their virginity. Is the content a good representation of what sex could be? And then, does it extrapolate out into relevant areas, like relationships, intimacy and love? Would the content of someone whose only experience with sex is the consumption of porn be relevant to someone looking for building relationship intimacy?
This is essentially what a lot of the content tends to be, where a person doesn't necessarily have experience in a particular area, other than what they have consumed through sources that they can't even vet well, because they don't have enough knowledge and experience to know what is relevant, and what is not. They are consuming metaphorical content "porn" and believing that pizza boys get all the girls.
And, it is relatively easy to spot when people don't actually know that much, because they aren't able to connect what they have consumed to anything relevant. They can't infer anything from the knowledge they have learned, because it lives in a vacuum. And sharing experience isn't about telling what one knows, or at least not directly. Good content comes through the ability to share life experience through a lens that is interesting and compelling. For instance, there is a lot of experience in this piece, but in order to be able to read and feel between the lines, experience is also needed.
And, this is one of the problems with the continual consumers, because the content they eat is built in a way where thinking needn't be applied. It is prechewed, not food for thought. The movies and shows are not designed for a lot of between the lines or lateral thinking, they are made to sit back and enjoy thoughtlessly. It is all detail based, time-lined, like the Marvel universe. Content that is churned out to be consumed by the mindless, for profit alone. So, when the consumers produce from this kind of content, the majority are not adding anything creative, they are just regurgitating the facts and figures of what they have consumed, like sports statisticians, who have never played the game.
It is not that there isn't a space for this, or no demand, but it is something that is not unique, and brings no personality to the table. It is low-hanging fruit and as such, many people can create similar, meaning that there is no competitive advantage in its production. It is all just filler content that takes up space, and the vast majority of it will never garner attention for long.
This is why the next stage people take is to produce their content in response to other people's content, because then they can get engagement, by starting an argument. But, there are differences in engagement too, because it is going to depend on what kind of result one is chasing. Is it attention at any cost based on polarizing views like the media does, or is it attention on developing skills and relationships to strengthen a community? One is magnitudes harder to do than the other and if the content is doing what the media does and supports, it is not about strengthening relationships - it is about clicks.
I am glad on Hive that there is staked support, even though it is often misguided. I am glad that it isn't based on number of clicks as the only consideration of value, because that leads to poor incentives. It leads not only to polarization and toxicity, it also means that the incentive is there to get attention at any cost, even if it means embellishing to the point of lying about experience, like an Instagram Influencer.
When it comes to content creation, it is pretty easy to see, who has got their wick wet.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
